Trump's America: The End of Free Speech and a Free Press (w/ Flemming Rose)

Freedom of expression stands as democracy's most essential and most vulnerable foundation. In this conversation, Danish journalist and author Flemming Rose shares profound insights from his experience at the center of the 2005 Muhammad cartoons controversy that sparked global protests and death threats.

Rose offers a surprising revelation: free speech is fundamentally unnatural. "Free speech is a consequence not of culture, not of nature," he explains. "The natural inclination among human beings is not to accept free speech." This counterintuitive truth helps explain why even those who claim to champion free expression often only support it for views they find agreeable—a contradiction that becomes increasingly problematic in multicultural societies.

We discuss how the publication of twelve cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad wasn't simply an isolated incident but emerged from an ongoing national debate about immigration, integration, and self-censorship. 

Most alarmingly, Rose identifies a global "freedom recession" affecting even established Western democracies. As societies become more diverse and face increasing instability, governments frequently respond by imposing greater restrictions on expression—a trend accelerated by terrorist threats, wars, and the chaotic information landscape of social media. Despite this bleak assessment, however, Rose maintains some hope, noting that throughout history, free speech has served as the primary tool for marginalized groups fighting for equality.

For anyone concerned about the future of democracy, especially under this second Trump presidency, this episode offers essential context for understanding the delicate balance between free expression and social cohesion. As authoritarian impulses gain strength worldwide, including in the United States, Rose reminds us why we must actively cultivate tolerance—that rare capacity to live peacefully alongside ideas we find objectionable without resorting to suppression or violence.

Recommended:

The Tyranny of Silence - Flemming Rose

After America Podcast Series

-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Bluesky
YouTube

Email: [e-mail]

Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock

Episode Transcript

Flemming (00:00):
You cannot have free speech without tolerance, and
tolerance meaning the ability tolive with things that you hate
without, you know, resorting toviolence, intimidation, threats
and legal bans.
But that's a product of aculture and not of nature.

(00:22):
So without practicing freespeech on a day-to-day basis, it
will fade away, because thenatural inclination among human
beings is not to accept freespeech, and that's why, you know
, one of the things I learnedfrom this process is that what

(00:47):
most people mean when they saythey are in favor of free speech
is that they are in favor offree speech for people who more
or less think the same as theydo themselves.

Shawn (01:06):
Welcome to Deep Dive with me, s C Fettig.
I'm going to tell you up frontthat this episode has a lengthy
intro and a call to action inthe outro.
I have been guilty of sometimesskipping the intro and outro
podcasts, and I'm sure you maybehave as well.
I get it, but I am asking thatfor this one episode, you listen
to both the intro and the outroand obviously the middle.

(01:29):
The point is, this entireepisode is important.
Last year, I released a limitedseries called After America,
which brought together two dozenacademics, journalists, authors
and researchers to imagine whatdemocratic backsliding or
outright authoritarianism mightlook like in the United States,
how our politics have beenprimed for exploitation of

(01:51):
democracy, how Donald Trumpposes a unique and very present
threat to democracy, what leverscould be pulled to bring about
a democratic collapse and how itmight race through every aspect
of our lives political,economic, social, spiritual,
cultural and physical,transforming everything we've
ever known and understood aboutour privacy, liberty, freedom

(02:13):
and opportunity, all for theworse.
That moment is here.
We are no longer in danger ofdemocratic backsliding.
We are far down that road.
We need to stop prevaricatingand parsing our language.
We are in the midst of anauthoritarian takeover of
American democracy and, whileyou may not feel it yet, you
will eventually.

(02:34):
While you may even delight inthe violence and brutality that
is exacted by Trump on hisenemies, and even on innocent,
hardworking people just tryingto survive in a country that
fleeces its most vulnerable forthe benefit of its most affluent
, while some of you may enjoywatching this happen, the
downstream impact on all of us,including you, will be

(02:55):
devastating, and enduring Afailed state means we become the
country some of you despise anddismiss.
We become the shithole country.
Some of you despise and dismisswe become the shithole country.
It is the institutions thatTrump is attacking now that make
us the world power that we areor were.
Higher education is facing anexistential moment in this
country and, frankly,universities have become, in

(03:17):
many ways, elitist institutionsin need of a dramatic overhaul.
But it is also the strength andindependence of these
institutions that have made themthe envy of.
But it is also the strength andindependence of these
institutions that have made themthe envy of the world, where
the smartest and most creativepeople the world over clamor to
be.
We have cornered the market oncutting-edge thinking and
research, and if we close thatdoor, it will be to the benefit

(03:38):
of other nations, some of whichare already taking advantage of
the academic purge and exodus,instituting visa policies and
job packages that make it easyfor academics and researchers to
relocate abroad, taking theirexpertise with them.
Lawyers and law firms perhapsjustifiably are scorned at times
as being duplicitous andcapitalist, to the detriment of

(04:00):
true justice, and that demandsreformation.
But Trump's sledgehammer is notfixing the problem.
It's actually exacerbating it.
By forcing the American legalsystem to bend to his whims, to
support only his causes, toprosecute his enemies, he is
transforming our flawed systemof aspirational justice into his
personal engine of persecution.

(04:21):
He's creating the corruptionand the abuse he pretends to be.
Dispensing of the free press inthe United States has not always
been clear-eyed or evenaccurate.
They have made mistakes, butthey have also been responsible
for uncovering abuses of powerin the interest of the greater
public, the greater good.
Without a free press, we wouldnot have known how much the

(04:42):
United States government waslying about our involvement in
the Vietnam War, the extent ofchild sex abuse in the Catholic
Church, sexual abuse andharassment in Hollywood, how
Facebook was selling our data toCambridge Analytica, the ways
in which American militarypersonnel were torturing
detainees in Abu Ghraib, in Iraq, the toxic level of

(05:02):
contaminants in Flint,michigan's water supply, how Big
Pharma created and profited offof the opioid crisis, and much
more.
Trump's attack on the freepress threatens our ability to
be informed about things in ourlives that literally could mean
the difference between life anddeath.
I don't always like the newsI'm hearing.
I don't like to hear thatpoliticians and artists and

(05:23):
civil servants and educatorshave done bad things, have
disappointed me, are sometimesundeserving of my adoration and
adulation.
But I don't blame the press, Iblame the bad actor.
If we blame the news, the pressfor telling us inconvenient
truths, then we are complicit ina future in which we don't
actually know anything and haveto fear everything and everyone.

(05:45):
That is the wasteland, theapocalyptic course that Trump
has set us on.
A dedicated and independentcivil service is the backbone of
a functioning economy, societyand democracy.
Bureaucracy can be frustrating,it can seem unfair and
unyielding, and sometimes it isinefficient and impersonal.
But to do away with a civilservice and, worse, replace it

(06:12):
with inexperienced politicalideologues means that your
Social Security is no longerguaranteed.
Medicare and Medicaid becomeineffectual as billing
procedures and wait times becomeopaque.
Mail delivery becomesintermittent.
Passports aren't updatedregularly.
Schools experience randombudget shortfalls, meaning that
teachers are hired and firedunexpectedly.

(06:32):
Programs disappear withoutnotice.
Curriculum is no longersupported by science or history
or any best practice, all ofthis disrupting educational
planning and continuity.
Travel is routinely interrupted, delayed and canceled.
Air train and sea travel becometruly life-or-death experiences
.
Public websites responsible forcritical care and

(06:54):
infrastructure crash.
Voters are unsure if they canvote in any given election and
they're turned away.
Day of People are inexplicablyand mistakenly arrested and
prosecuted, and the justicesystem is too burdened and
understaffed to correct.
Neighbors get into propertydisputes that cannot be mediated
effectively, turningneighborhoods into mini war

(07:14):
zones.
You get the picture, and peoplewill be routinely disappeared
those that are in the statesundocumented, but also, as Trump
has suggested, even legalresident visa holders and
citizens.
Masked individuals in unmarkedvehicles will show up in our
schools, our churches, shoppingcenters, parks and even our
homes and just grab peoplewithout identifying themselves.

(07:36):
People we will never see again,maybe people we know, and
mistakes will be made.
I know this because it isalready happening.
This is a model that has beentried in other countries.
It never succeeds, it nevermakes a country great, it never
leads to economic prosperity.
It never increases happinessand freedom.

(07:56):
It always destroys.
It only destroys.
This is Trump's America.
Today's episode is a bitdifferent than a typical deep
dive episode.
As I said, I interviewed about24 people for After America, of
which I only used certain partsof those interviews to provide
context throughout the series.
No individual interview ran inits entirety.

(08:18):
A handful of those interviewsresonated with me particularly
having a prescient and relevantvalue to the moment we're living
through right now in the UnitedStates.
One of those interviews waswith Flemming Rose, a Danish
journalist and editor, bestknown for his role in publishing
the controversial Hamedcartoons in Jyllands Posten in
2005, which sparked globalprotests and a fierce debate

(08:42):
over freedom of speech.
As the paper's culture editorat the time, fleming defended
the publication as a standagainst self-censorship and in
support of free expression andfree speech in liberal
democracies.
He later became a vocaladvocate for press freedom,
writing and speaking extensivelyon the balance between liberty,
tolerance and the challenges ofmulticulturalism, immigration

(09:04):
and integration.
He also wrote the book theTyranny of Silence.
As Trump's America is cominginto focus, as we are already
experiencing a constitutionalcrisis, a dismantling of
democracy, from which we may notbe able to come back, I think
that my conversation withFleming is particularly
important, so that's what I'mreleasing here today.
While our conversation occurredover a year ago, much of what we

(09:27):
talk about really foreshadowswhat is happening in the United
States now how government andlaw can be weaponized to
suppress speech, to deny libertyand freedom and to perpetrate
violence.
The first part of ourconversation really focuses on
the Muhammad cartoons of 2005,the response, the fallout, the
death threats, the actualattempts on his life, and while

(09:48):
I think this is reallyinteresting, I understand that
you have limited time, so ifyou'd like to jump over that
part and really get into thefree speech, free press,
democracy, multiculturalism partof the conversation, you could
choose to jump ahead about 23minutes from this point in the
episode.
Also, you should go back andcheck out all 12 episodes of
After America.
There's a link in the shownotes.

(10:10):
All right, if you like thisepisode or any episode, please
give it a like, share and followon your favorite podcast
platform and or subscribe to thepodcast on YouTube.
And, as always, if you have anythoughts, questions or comments
, please feel free to email meat deepdivewithshawn at gmailcom
.
Let's do a deep dive.
I'm actually thinking we shouldstart with some landscaping,

(10:40):
which in this context is theMuhammad cartoons controversy.
So would you be willing to givekind of an overview of that,
what happened, how it played out, and also you've criticized
some of your journalismcolleagues for their response to
it, so maybe talk a little bitabout why.

Flemming (10:54):
Yeah, I mean, if we begin with the publication of
the cartoons and the controversythat followed, I think it's all
very context dependent and youknow a lot of people afterwards
said, well, you should haveknown or you could tell that

(11:16):
this would be the reaction thatfollowed.
But I don't think that's thecase and you can just go back
and you can see thatpublications or cartoons of the
Prophet you know they have beenpublished earlier without
causing these kinds ofcontroversies.

(11:40):
I'm not trying to say thatMuslims were excited and

(12:12):
enthusiastic about thepublication of those cartoons,
but I don't think that you justliked, you know, triggering a
gun process.
That involved and depended onwhat was going on primarily
within Muslim majority countriesin the Middle East and in
Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Ithink also maybe the broader
geopolitical context at themoment.
This was in the aftermath ofthe US-led invasion of Iraq.
Western forces were based inAfghanistan and I think that is

(12:58):
the broader context.
And when I wrote the book I wentback and talked to people and
found out that, for example, ifyou take Egypt, egypt let the
Muslim Brotherhood participatein a parliamentary election for
the first time in many years, ifnot ever.
And the Muslim Brotherhood youknow, they present themselves as

(13:22):
the true caretakers of Islamand that was, you know, one of
their points of difference withthe Mubarak government.
And therefore, this case was,you know, a gift from heaven for
Mubarak and he could exploit itin order to tell the Egyptian

(13:44):
people no, it's not the MuslimBrotherhood, it's, in fact, us.
So there was a very specificcontext.
But if we take the cartoons, Imean a lot of people think that
they were just kind of publishedout of the blue, that they were

(14:10):
just kind of published out ofthe blue, you know why.
Let's find some way that we canoffend a billion Muslims.
But that's not the case.
I mean, it was part of a debateabout immigration, integration,
the place of religion in asecular democracy and, in this
case, specifically Islam, therelationship between a majority

(14:33):
and minorities in amulticultural democracy and all
these issues.
Somehow, I think they were allpart of the debate about these
cartoons.
But the specific trigger was achildren's book that was

(14:56):
published in the fall of 2005 bya Danish children's writer
about the life of the prophetMuhammad, and in the late summer
, the Danish wire news servicepublished a story about his book
, a news story that basicallysaid you know I've written this

(15:19):
book, but I had big difficultiesfinding an illustrator and that
story was on the front page ofmost Danish newspapers.
Also the paper I worked at atthe time, jyllands Post, but not

(15:39):
only, and most papers publishedthe illustrations that he in
fact finally got into this bookand it triggered a big debate
about self-censorship and how totreat Islam within the public
domain in Denmark.

(15:59):
So the publication of thecartoons that was not the
initial coverage of this topic,but when we had published this
story about this children'swriter and we had called
illustrators, translators,people from cultural life,

(16:21):
people from political parties,and they had responded to this,
and the following week there wasa debate at an editorial
meeting about, you know, arethere any way that we can follow
up on this story?
And then a journalist came upwith this idea, because at that
time there was a debate, youknow, is there self-censorship

(16:45):
or not?
Is it true what this children'swriter in fact is saying?
Both his specific case, and wasthis part of a broader trend or
not, or not?

(17:10):
And then journalists suggestedwell, why don't we invite
cartoonists to draw the profitso we can find out if there is
self-censorship or not, which is, you know a classical
journalistic principle Don'ttell, show it.
I mean you can have this debateback and forth, but he proposed
this idea so we in fact couldtest it on people who work with

(17:35):
images and do images as theirdaily job, how they relate to
this challenge.
And in the aftermath, a lot ofpeople criticized me for
approaching cartoonists and notillustrators or painters.
And I mean I can see inhindsight why, because

(18:00):
cartoonists they do oftensatirical cartoons, because
cartoonists, they do oftensatirical cartoons.
But I mean I didn't pay anyattention, it didn't catch my
mind back then.
And the fact of the matter isthat when you work at a
newspaper, you have a deadlineand from the moment when you

(18:26):
have an idea until you have topublish something, it's quite a
short time, quite often a shorttime.
And it just happened so thattwo weeks before I had been in
touch with the chairman of theDanish Cartoonist Association
and that's why I reached out tohim and I told him you know, we

(18:47):
have this idea, what do youthink?
And he got back to me and saidwell, it's an interesting idea
and we would like to participate, but we don't want to be part
of an anti-Muslim project.
And I said to him.
You know that we have nointention to target Muslims here
.
It's not about that.

(19:07):
It's about self-censorship andthe debate that have evolved
around that issue.
And I wrote I got the addressesof all members of the Danish
Cartoonist Association from himand I wrote a letter in which I

(19:28):
invited them to participate.
And my question to them wasdraw the prophet as you see him?
So there was no invitation tomockery or satire, so it was a
very neutral and open invitation.
And if you look at the newspaperpage, it becomes obvious that

(19:51):
those cartoons are verydifferent, because it was an
open invitation and they havetackled this challenge in very
different ways.
And you know there are cartoonsmaking fun of this children's
writer.
There is one cartoon targetingthe newspaper where I worked.
There's another cartoon that istargeting at that time the most

(20:16):
anti-Muslim politician inDenmark.
And at the end of the day, outof those 12 cartoons, only four
of them in fact depicts theprophet.
So eight of them, two thirdsthey don't even depict the
prophet.
And I received those 12cartoons and there were 42

(20:40):
members of the CartoonistAssociation were 42 members of
the Cartoonist Association.
So we thought at some pointthat this is not very
representative.
It's only one third of themembers of the association.
So can we publish that?
And then one of the cartoonistssaid to me well, in fact

(21:02):
there's only 25 members who areactive, so that made it about
50% and we thought that was okay.
But then another process startedwithin the paper and that had
to do with the original story,because there was a debate was
this just one isolated case orwas it part of a broader trend?

(21:24):
Point one.
Point two was this children'swriter just inventing this story
in order to sell more books ofthe book went public, saying

(21:45):
that he had insisted onanonymity, which is a form of
self-censorship you do not wantto appear under your own name
because you are afraid whatmight happen to you if you do.
And he admitted that he wasafraid and he had spoken to his
wife.
And he made a reference toSalman Rushdie and the Dutch

(22:11):
filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who waskilled in Amsterdam in 2004 for
doing a documentary or a moviecriticizing violence against
women being justified withreferences to the Quran or the
Hadiths.

(22:31):
And while we were having thisdebate, I mean four or five
other examples pointing to thesame problem became public.
Pointing to the same problembecame public.
I think there was a museum inGothenburg, Sweden, where they

(22:57):
had exhibited a painting by anAlgerian-French woman of a man
and a woman having sex, and thenwith the first words from the
Quran on the painting.
And Muslims in Sweden theycomplained and the curator
removed the painting withoutasking the artist.
Not the curator, but thedirector of the museum removed

(23:19):
the painting without asking theartist and the curator, and that
was a clear example ofself-censorship.
And you had a similar case in aTate Gallery in London where a
conceptual British artist Ithink his name is John Latham he
had a retrospective exhibitionand one of the installations was

(23:44):
a copy of the Bible, the Koranand the Talmud, torn into pieces
and layered in a piece of glass.
The director of the museumdecided to remove that
installation, also withoutasking John Leifheim and the
curator, and also without askingJews, muslims or Christians

(24:07):
involved or the police if therewas any threat connected to
exhibiting that piece of art.
This is in the aftermath of the7-7 bombings in London in 2005.
And you know there were five orsix similar cases speaking to

(24:32):
self-censorship, cases speakingto self-censorship and fear when
it comes to the treatment ofIslam in the public domain.
So then we decided to publishthe cartoons on September 30th
and I wrote a short text, youknow, laying out the reasoning
behind this and referencing someof the cases, these five, six

(24:56):
cases, and that was it.
And you know, I think on thefirst day, the day they were
published, I received a phonecall from a newspaper vendor in
Copenhagen who said that hedidn't want to sell the
newspaper anymore in his store.
But that was everything I heard, and you know that's quite

(25:20):
usual for a newspaper editorwhen you publish things that
some people don't like and thenthey unsubscribe or they don't
want to sell the newspaper, andso on and so forth.
But then the debate started andit all exploded, I think about
four months later, as aconsequence also of imams

(25:40):
traveling to the Middle Easttrying to gain support from
important imams and governmentsin Muslim-majority countries,
important imams and governmentsin Muslim majority countries.
So that's just a little bitabout the context in which they
were published.
To me it was never aboutmocking Muslims, even though I

(26:10):
acknowledge that a lot ofMuslims perceived it that way,
and I know people will see thisas a joke or not very serious.
But I think you can make theargument that the publication of
those cartoons could be seen asan integration project in the
sense that by publishing thosecartoons, we were saying to

(26:32):
Muslims in Denmark that you know, we do not expect more of you
and we do not expect less of you.
We expect of you exactly thesame as we do of every other
group in our society when itcomes to satire and public

(26:52):
debate.
In our society, when it comesto satire and public debate and
in that lies an act ofrecognition that you are equal
members of our society you arenot strangers that have to be
treated in an especially politeway.
You are part of our commonsociety.

(27:17):
Did?

Shawn (27:18):
you ever get any feedback from the government about it?

Flemming (27:24):
No, and I think that speaks to the.
I suppose that I mean, I don'tknow if you remember that case
in the United States, but therewas a priest in Florida, terry
Jones.
But after 9-11, he annuallyorganized burnings of the Quran

(27:49):
as a way of expressing hisrelationship to Islam and 9-11.
And in fact, bob Gates andPetraeus, who was the commander,
I think, of the US forces inAfghanistan at the time.
They called him and asked himto call off the Koran burning,

(28:14):
which he finally did.
But the fact of the matter isthat this is legal it's First
Amendment, protected speech butit didn't happen in Denmark.

(28:34):
The government didn't call theeditor-in-chief or me to ask us
not to publish one thing or theother.
Some businesses did that andthat's quite understandable.
I would have found it quitenatural if the government had
called the editor-in-chief, butin fact they didn't, because,

(28:56):
you know, it turned out to bethe worst foreign policy crisis
for Denmark since World War IIand there was a huge pressure on
the government and a realterrorist threat.
I mean, we didn't understandthat in the beginning, but
gradually, as months and yearswent by, it became very clear
that there was a very seriousterrorist threat and in fact

(29:24):
some terrorist attacks did takeplace.
So I mean the businesses.
One of the businesses whocalled they were losing money in
the Middle East because Danishproducts had been boycotted and
the Association of DanishBusinesses called on the
newspaper to give a publicapology to Muslims.
And he didn't know that at thattime we in fact already had

(29:48):
published on our website inArabic a message saying you know
that we feel sorry if peoplehad been offended by the
publication of those cartoonsand that had not been our
intention.

Shawn (30:02):
I want to talk a little bit more about self-censorship,
because I'm thinking about whenRussia invaded Ukraine in
February of 2020.
I have a handful of Russian2022.
Yeah, correct, correct.
I have a handful of Russianfriends in my orbit, and so we
were having a conversation aboutthis and arguing a little bit,

(30:23):
and one of them pulled up acartoon of Russia was
represented as a big bear andUkraine was represented as a
bear cub, and then the UnitedStates was behind the bear cub
poking the russian bear, andthey were saying this is all
about the united states pokingthe bear and that by doing that
now they've caused all of this.

(30:44):
Right, and I think it's the sameconcept as that.
It's in the same realm asself-censorship is, which is
maybe we shouldn't do thisbecause we don't want to cause a
problem.
We do this in our personal,which is maybe we shouldn't do
this because we don't want tocause a problem.
We do this in our personallives too, like, maybe I
shouldn't say that because Idon't want to offend someone,
but in the context of journalism, I guess I'm wondering if you
think that any amount ofself-censorship at any point is

(31:06):
okay or not, and at what pointdoes self-censorship become
dangerous in the world in thecontext of journalism.
When does it become dangerousand why?

Flemming (31:18):
I mean I don't think that you can give a final and
general answer.
I think it always depends oncontext, so I don't think you
can provide any generalguidelines.
And it is true, I mean you haveetiquette, you have good

(31:42):
manners, and then you haveself-censorship, and I think I
mean I'm all for good mannersand good behavior and try to be
nice to other people, but Ithink the I mean one way of
explaining the differencebetween good manners and
self-censorship is that you know, good manners is basically

(32:05):
following a norm that you imposeon yourself, on yourself.
When you go to a restaurant,you don't eat with your hands,
at least in Denmark, with yourfingers, while I think
self-censorship is that you wantto say something but you

(32:26):
refrain from doing it becauseyou are afraid of the
consequences, and then, ofcourse, there are all shades of
gray here in between.
But I think the fundamentalproblem with self-censorship is
that it is invisible.
You don't see it.
You know, in this debate inDenmark about the cartoons,

(32:52):
because at some point all mediastopped publishing you know this
famous cartoon of the prophetwith a bomb in his turban, and
that was clearly self-censorship, and I think that's, I mean
that's okay.
In fact, I just think that I'mnot calling on people to publish

(33:16):
something.
If they don't, if they areafraid of what might happen, I
think that's totally fair gameand I will not criticize it.
What I will criticize is ifthey come up with other
explanations.
So they are not transparentabout their self-censorship.
So if they say, you know, we'renot publishing this cartoon

(33:39):
because we are afraid, I thinkthat's perfectly fine and then
we can have an honest debate.
Because, you know, I myself Idon't think that a single
cartoon is worth, or any cartoonis worth, a single human life.
The problem for editors andjournalists is you know, what do
we do if other people think so,that it's okay to kill and

(34:03):
threaten because of a cartoon?
Media stopped publishing thatcartoon in Denmark.
You know, there were twoexplanations running through the
whole thing, and one was that,well, we now know what this

(34:25):
cartoon looks like, so we don'thave to publish it anymore.
To which I replied well, wealso know what Barack Obama
looks like, but nevertheless wepublish a photograph of him
every time we run a story abouthim.
So I don't think that's thereal reason why you don't

(34:45):
publish it.
And the other explanation waswell, you know, we know this is
offensive to a lot of people, sowe don't we shouldn't publish
it and that sounds nice, but theproblem is and the fact of the
matter is, that you know,newspapers and media every day

(35:08):
publish things that some peopleout there are offended by and
nevertheless they publish it.
I can just give you one exampleIn the summer of 2011, a
Norwegian terrorist he killed, Ithink, 77 young Norwegians on
an island not far from Oslo, onan island not far from Oslo, and

(35:39):
the year after there waswall-to-wall coverage of this in
Danish media about this guy andwhat happened, and I can assure
you that the relatives of thosewho had been killed, they were
offended by a lot of thatcoverage, but nevertheless the
media ran with that storybecause it was relevant and it
was news.

(35:59):
So I think both of thoseexplanations they are a
cover-off, because it's notcourageous to say you are afraid
.
It's not courageous to say youare afraid.
So you try to come up with niceand rational explanations that

(36:22):
sounds good and make yourselflook better.
And, of course, at the end ofthe day, you can't be sure,
because self-censorship isinvisible and you only find out
about self-censorship whenpeople are transparent about
their motives and why they donot publish something.

Shawn (36:43):
I guess that kind of makes me wonder you've been in
the journalism industry, so youhave an insider knowledge that I
don't have, but do you get thesense that journalists are
self-censoring way more thanthey make public?
I don't need specific examples,I'm just wondering if it's a
problem in the industry.

Flemming (37:03):
You know, I think it's a problem anywhere where you
have a group of people whoestablish a narrative about what
is newsworthy and about what isnot.
I think then the issue becomesif you have enough different
media covering a broad spectrumof opinions in society at large.

(37:26):
So if you don't like you knowthe way the New York Times cover
a story, then you can read theNew York Post or the Wall Street
Journal.
If you don't like CNN or MSNBC,you can watch Fox News.
I mean I think you know I meanin every society and within

(37:46):
every group norms.
I mean they are not, you knowthey are unspoken.
I mean they are not, you knowthey are unspoken.
But it's just like theatmosphere that and it just
comes about in the process ofdoing journalism that you, there
are certain stories that youthink this is a great story for

(38:09):
the New York Times or otherstories that you think, well,
this is a great story for FoxNews.
I mean that's the way you knowsocial psychology works and I
don't think that newsrooms ormedia, they are any different.
It would be the same in asoccer club or in a church

(38:33):
community or whatever.

Shawn (38:36):
So let's talk about why speech is critical to a
democracy, and I guess theapproach I want to take here is
that in any authoritarian regimeor in any country that's
experiencing democraticbacksliding, one of the first
things, that one of the firsttools that they employ is
suppression of speech and pressand association, which begs the

(38:58):
question what is the threat thatspeech and press and
association pose toauthoritarianism?
And then I guess the other sideof that coin is what role does
free speech play in a healthydemocracy?

Flemming (39:11):
I think free speech is perceived as a threat both to
the powers that be in anautocracy but also to the powers
that be in a democracy.
The difference is that we treatit differently, or at least try
to, and that has to do.
I mean, one of the things Ilearned from this whole cartoon

(39:35):
affair is that, you know,freedom of expression is very
unnatural.
It's the exception and not therule, because free speech in
many ways goes against humannature.
So free speech is a consequencenot of nature, but of culture.

(39:57):
It's something that we have toteach and learn, and the natural
reaction when you're exposed tospeech that you don't like is
to switch off the television orthrow away the newspaper or
leave a meeting.

(40:17):
You really have to learn toovercome this sense of rejection
and protest when you're forcedto listen and read opinions or
speech that you don't like.

(40:38):
And that's why I think that theconcept of tolerance is very
important to free speech.
You cannot have free speechwithout tolerance, and tolerance
meaning the ability to livewith things that you hate
without, you know, um, resortingto violence, intimidation,

(41:01):
threats and legal bans.
But that's not that's.
That's, that's a product ofculture and not of uh, nature.
So it's.
It's so without practicing freespeech on a day-to-day basis.
It will fade away, because thenatural inclination among human

(41:23):
beings is not to accept freespeech, and that's why, you know

(41:49):
, one of the things I learnedfrom this process is that what
most people mean when they saythey are in favor of free speech
is that they were verysupportive of Jyllands Post and
me when it comes to thepublication of the cartoons
during the debate of the rightto bear a burqa or veil or if

(42:15):
Muslims should have a right tobuild mosques and things like
that.

Shawn (42:22):
I mean, if they were really in favor of free speech
in a consistent manner, theywould have supported both the
Muslims' right to exercise theirfreedom of religion and freedom
of speech and the newspapers'right to publish satirical
cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, but they didn't you're hitting
on something else, that afriction that exists that I want

(42:46):
to talk a little bit about,which is, you know, on the one
hand, we argue that, like freespeech is critical to a
functioning and healthydemocracy, and, on the other
hand, we argue that absolutefree speech can also be damaging
to a democracy, and I guess Ifeel like, yes, both of these
things are true, but I wonder ifyou've given any thought to

(43:08):
this and where you land on thisor how you think about the
balance.

Flemming (43:12):
If you look up the literature on free speech, then
there are three main argumentsthroughout the literature in
favor of free speech, and one isthe argument from truth.
That is, free speech isimportant to figure out what is
truth and what is not, andtherefore it's important that a

(43:34):
democracy, that you debatethings and you pass new laws
after a public debate, where youhave different points of views

(43:57):
and you have this competition orcontest and political parties
represent different points ofview and in the end, you arrive
at some laws and they arelegitimate because you had a
free debate before you passedthem.

(44:20):
You have the argument fromautonomy, that is, in order to
develop yourself as a humanbeing, in order to be the person
you are, in order to be able toto to interact with other
people, free speech is important.

(44:40):
It's important that you, you,you, you speak your mind and you
get feedback and in thatprocess you get a sense of who
you are and you get anopportunity to develop as an
individual.
And I think all of these threearguments, they have some truth

(45:04):
to them.
But I think today that a fourthargument is maybe more important
and that is that you know, inthe United States, in Denmark.
In most societies in the world,we have a more diverse society,
you know, it's becoming moremulticultural, more multi-ethnic

(45:25):
, more multi-religious, and Ithink free speech is, in fact,
and tolerance, of course this is.
They are closely related.
But free speech is, in fact,the best way to manage
differences and disagreements ina diverse society, because free

(45:48):
speech and tolerance impliesthat you know you can be
offended, you can sort out yourdifferences, you can argue, but
you do not use violence andthreats in order to settle your
disagreements.
And in that process, I thinkfree speech and tolerance, in

(46:08):
fact, are the tools that make itpossible to live in peace side
by side, in spite of alldifferences, and still be
committed to a working democracy.

Shawn (46:24):
I'm glad you talk about multiculturalism, because it is
a lot of democracies, at least,are becoming much more
multicultural, and I do think Idon't think this is
controversial to say.
I think that multiculturalismcan pose challenges to
democracies in ways that theydon't in one authoritarian
regimes, but also in uniculturalsocieties, and by that I mean

(46:48):
both racial and ethnic, but alsoreligious.
When you have one very largeracial makeup in a country or a
very large religiousrepresentation in a country,
there's just less conflict.
You mentioned this as well.
It really behooves thesecountries, then democratic
countries, as we increase ourmulticulturalism, to also be

(47:10):
focusing on integration into our.
I don't know if Europeancountries France and Netherlands
and Italy as well and theUnited States are doing a good
job of integrating folks.

Flemming (47:34):
Well, at least until recently, I thought that the US
was doing a better job thanEurope.
But that might be because theUnited States is just receiving
so many more people now and youcan see that the border and
immigration has been, you know,a big political issue for some

(47:54):
years.
It wasn't a big issue when Iwas living in the US in the
middle of the 90s, but it is now.
You know.
I think that no, in Europe weare not good at integrating
foreigners.
I think it has to do well.

(48:17):
There are several factors.
One has been that we have bigwelfare states and it's very
difficult to run a big welfarestate in a multicultural society
and especially with a lot ofimmigration, because when you
know at one point have you madesuch a big contribution to

(48:40):
society that you deserve thesame kind of benefits as those
who have been living in thecountry for decades, and their
families might have been forcenturies.
So that is a difficulty.
And it also has tended tocreate a situation where

(49:04):
immigrants have moved to Europeand ended up on welfare and had
very big difficulties findingjobs because the minimum wage is
so high that their laborproductivity doesn't fit the
wage.
So they end up in the marginsof society, and it's very clear

(49:30):
that one of the most effectivemechanisms of integration is to
be on the labor market and havea job.
But I think, at least inDenmark, it has also to do with
the fact that we have been aquite homogeneous society for a
long time, with high levels ofsocial trust.
So it's just we just have toget you know, accustomed to a

(49:56):
new situation where people aremore different, and it's also
difficult.
I mean I'm married to animmigrant myself.
Difficult, I mean I'm marriedto an immigrant myself and so I
know a little and I also used towork, in fact, at the Danish
Refugee Council.
So I know this also from theother side.
And it's very clear that for animmigrant and a newcomer to

(50:20):
Denmark it is very difficult toget a sense of belonging to
society because the culturalcode is very thick.
Very difficult to get a senseof belonging to society because
the cultural code is very thick.
You know it's not just aboutsubscribing to some values, but
it's also about you know the wayyou dress, the jokes you tell,

(50:44):
what you eat and many morethings, the way you communicate.
So it's very easy to identifyan outsider and it might be in
the United States, for instance.
I think what you need in orderto feel part of your society is

(51:07):
you know, it's just a few things.
It's not a thick cultural code,it's the American dream.
And you know, maybe, what's inthe Bill of Rights or parts of
the Constitution and so on andso forth.
It's not so much about ways oflife, faith and so on and so
forth.
It's not so much about ways oflife, faith and so on and so

(51:29):
forth.

Shawn (51:30):
Before we started recording, we were chatting a
little bit about, you know, theevents of the cartoon
controversy, so that was in 2005.
And you said that the landscapehas changed quite a bit since
then as it relates to censorshipand speech, and I think you
were also alluding to how wecommunicate with each other.
But I'm wondering if you couldtell me what do you think has

(51:53):
changed?

Flemming (51:54):
You know, in 2005, facebook was less than one years
old, there were no social media.
And I can only you know in mynightmare, imagine what would
have happened if you have hadTwitter and Facebook and
Instagram back then.
But you didn't.
Yes, you had emails, you hadthe internet, but you did not

(52:19):
have the amount of interactionin the virtual space as you have
today.
But I think, I think the keything is that, I mean, I think
it was all, it was alreadybeginning back then.
But what is very different todayis that for the past 10, 15

(52:40):
years, if you look at allinternational surveys, we are
experiencing a freedom recession.
And in the beginning, you know,people thought well, this is
mainly happening in places likeChina and Russia, turkey, other
parts of the world.

(53:00):
But it turns out that withinthe past 10 years, this has also
been the case in Westerndemocracies and if you look at
those rankings and ratings, evenWestern liberal democracies
find themselves in a freedomrecession.
I think it might have to dowith, you know, partly with

(53:21):
social media, because this is anexplosion of information and
it's very difficult to manage,but I also think it has to do
with the fact that we have moremigration and societies are
becoming more diverse and youknow, while I'm in favor of free

(53:42):
speech, and I think that if youare in favor of a more diverse
society when it comes to culture, ethnicity and religion, it's
natural to also be in favor ofmore diverse speech, because it
reflects a more diverse society,If people are to speak their
minds and say what they thinkand feel and do not feel

(54:04):
restrained by this new reality.
But the fact of the matter isthat most politicians, they want
to solve this problem bypassing new laws putting new
limitations on speech in orderto preserve the social peace.
I think this is, I think it'sunderstandable, but I think it's

(54:27):
short-sighted and I think it'snot wise to sacrifice civil
liberties and freedom ofexpression on the altar of
ethnic, cultural and religiousdiversity.
So I think and then the finalthing that has been that has

(54:51):
accelerated this process since2022 and the war in Ukraine,
also now the war in Gaza youhave turbulence in other parts
of the world that you have, infact, a world that feels very
insecure.
We speak about the risk of warand even nuclear war, in a way

(55:13):
that we didn't do 10, 15, 20years ago, and in a world where
people feel insecure and unsafe.
It's a common rule that thenyou put new limitations on
individual freedoms.
It happens during war times,even though we are not at war

(55:37):
with Russia.
We have banned Russian media inWestern Europe, within the
European Union, and you spokeabout the Russians.
You are, that is, you know,they're part of your orbit and
until recently now it's a littlebit, you know it has changed a
bit, I think, within the pastmonths, because it looks like

(55:58):
the situation is very difficultfor Ukraine on the battlefield.
So people are starting tolooking for a way out of this
mess.
But for the first year and ahalf you criticized Western
policy and argued for a need tofind some kind of settlement to

(56:30):
this conflict.
So there was a big, big echochamber in the West and it turns
out that we miscalculated a lotof things, especially the state
of the Russian economy, andlater on also the state of the
Russian economy, and later onalso the state of the Russian
army and their ability toproduce weapons, and I think

(56:53):
that is that is it's wishfulthinking, it's magical thinking.
But it's also due to the factthat we couldn't have a free and
honest debate about thiswithout this very strong moral
component that made it verydifficult to challenge the

(57:14):
established narrative withoutbeing called names.

Shawn (57:19):
I'm also married to an immigrant, and that immigrant is
Russian, with family in bothRussia and Ukraine, so that
conflict is very much part ofour life.

Flemming (57:29):
Yeah, my wife is in fact also from the former Soviet
Union.

Shawn (57:33):
Oh really.

Flemming (57:34):
Russian yeah.

Shawn (57:35):
Okay, well, we have that in common.
But so we do have some of thesecountries that we've talked
about that have experiencedsignificant backsliding Russia,
obviously.
There's also countries likeIndia, and then we have other
countries that are on theprecipice of that, and I'm
talking about democraticcountries.
So I'm thinking about even someof the policies under Macron in

(57:58):
France are somewhat repressive.

Flemming (58:02):
I think basically it's the same everywhere, that in
all democratic countries there'sbeen a backsliding when it
comes to the protection of freespeech, terrorist attacks in
Western Europe and now the warin Ukraine and social media.
The way to manage this verychaotic platform world, the

(58:37):
trend is more bands, morelimitations.
So I think it's not just Russia, china, india, it's more common
than that, even though, ofcourse, the situation there is
far worse.
But they also have a war goingon.

(58:57):
And even though the US didn'tpass any new laws after 9-11 or
the war in Iraq, the New YorkTimes and the Washington Post
they had to apologize later fortheir very uncritical reporting
of what was going on.

Shawn (59:19):
Well, that actually gets at my question and maybe you've
answered it which is do you seeany countries that are on the
opposite track and actuallymoving in the direction of
enshrining and protecting rightsto free speech?

Flemming (59:31):
For instance, across Europe laws were passed
criminalizing the condoning ofterrorist acts or support of
terrorist acts.
That is, it was not incitementto terrorism in and by itself.

(59:59):
Of course that's prohibited.
That's prohibited.
But even if you said anythingpositive about a terrorist act
being committed, which of courseis outrageous but it used to be
protected by free speech.
And every European countrypassed these laws, without

(01:00:38):
Norway as an exception.
And in Norway they also used toapply hate speech laws in a far
more, in a far narrower sensethan in Denmark and Sweden, for
instance, not to speak aboutGermany and France.
Speak about Germany and France.
So I think Norway might.
I don't know what happenedrecently, but at least until
some years ago I think they werenot doing all the things

(01:00:59):
limiting speech that otherdemocracies in Europe were doing
at the time.

Shawn (01:01:04):
This kind of paints a bleak future for, or at least in
the near future.
It paints a bleak picture forfreedom of speech globally.
This is probably my finalquestion, but, given that and
what we know, how do you feelabout the future of free speech
moving forward?
Do you have hope or do youthink we maybe are too far gone?

Flemming (01:01:26):
No, I do have hope.
And it's not.
You know, it's based onhistorical evidence and the
history of free speech, becausehistory, in this sense, is not
linear, it comes and goes, itmoves in waves.

(01:01:50):
And I would say I would put itthis way that because people you
know ask me sometimes well, doyou think free speech is on the
threat?
Do you think free speech isthreatened?
And my reply is, I mean, freespeech is always threatened, by
definition, because of what Isaid earlier, that it's not a
product of nature, it's culture.

(01:02:12):
So free speech is doing well,as long as we keep cultivating
and nurturing this culture offree speech, and the war for
free speech will never be won ina final way.
You can win and lose battlesalong the way, but you can never

(01:02:36):
win the war because there is somuch in human nature that in
fact goes against free speech.
So it doesn't come and go byitself.
And that's the reason why Ithink at some point I mean, the
world is living through a veryturbulent time right now but I

(01:02:58):
think, you know, within 10 yearsor so, I think we will see the
contours of a new world orderwhich will provide some kind of
stability, and this is, in fact,the precondition for people not
being afraid, and that willprovide the context for, you

(01:03:21):
know, it will be easier to standup for these values and protect
them.
And I also think that, as we goalong, we will become better at
managing social media.
You know, I used to work at Catoon content moderation.

(01:03:43):
We had a project there andthat's Facebook and Twitter.
You know what speech should youtake down and what should you
leave up, and it's very, verychaotic and there is so much
speech that basically, you can.
In the current world, it's verydifficult to do it without
artificial intelligence, butthis is due to the fact that the

(01:04:07):
um, the, the platform world isdominated by some very few big
players, and I don't think thatwas the way it was meant in the
beginning.
And we might, you know, move ina direction where we will have
a more fractured public space,where you will have communities

(01:04:29):
that are smaller and that willcreate more diversity across
platforms, instead of having,you know, one, two, three, four,
five big platforms I don't know.
But I mean, a lot of people isstruggling with these issues and
we are very early in thisprocess, so I just don't think

(01:04:56):
that we have not been able towork out.
You know a way of managing thisinformation chaos in a way that
is protective of of of freespeech, and we have excesses,
you know, going both ways, butat some point I think this also
will settle down and and then itmight be easier to have a more

(01:05:21):
usual conversation about.
You know the legitimatelimitations on on on speech and
speech and what is problematic.
Do you think content should bemoderated?
Yes, and I'm not, you know Imean you had that question in
the notes, jean about I'm, infact, not a free speech

(01:05:42):
absolutist in the sense that Idon't think that there should be
any limitations on speech.
I do think that there arelegitimate limitations on speech
, for instance, threats,incitement to violence, fraud.

(01:06:03):
When you give testimony in acourt case, you're not allowed
to lie.
That's perjury.
And I also think libel laws tosome extent are okay in order to
protect your reputation, yourreputation.

(01:06:27):
People should not be allowed tosay anything about you and your
business without potentiallegal consequences, even though
I think they should be verynarrow these laws.
And I also think that ordinarypeople they have a right to
privacy, so media should nothave an unfettered right to

(01:06:49):
invade people's private livesand publish information about it
Only if they are public figuresand if what is happening in
their private lives is relevantto what they are doing in the
public to what they are doing inthe public.

Shawn (01:07:10):
That's interesting and it makes me wonder.
I think about people thatexploit and traffic in this very
kind of speech, right?
So I'm thinking about DonaldTrump, I'm thinking about your
neighbor, geert Wilders.
So you know, given that thatthis is exactly the kind of
speech that they exploit, do youthink that they truly pose
threats to democracy?

Flemming (01:07:32):
Not in and by themselves.
I mean, they have supportersare unimportant, of course they
are.
But they only become presidentsor prime ministers or chairmen

(01:07:52):
of a big party if they havefollowers.
And I think it's very tempting.
I mean, geert Wilders has infact been convicted in the
Netherlands for speed.
But I think one should be verycareful what they wish for,
because if Geert Wilders getsinto power and becomes prime

(01:08:13):
minister and will have amajority in parliament, he will
use the hate speech laws thathave been used against him,
against the Muslim minority inthe Netherlands.
He will say that the Koran andmosques and Muslim communities,
they are exercising hate speechand therefore we have to ban

(01:08:35):
them.
So you know, it's this sayingone man's hate speech is another
man's poetry.
So I think I'm not in favor ofthese hate speech laws.
I think we should get rid ofthem and I also think, if you
look at history and this is also, I mean, this power, narrative,
ability to have a voice in thepublic domain that's very

(01:09:10):
unequal, that's true.
But if you look at, you know,social movements throughout
history who have been repressedand who have not had a voice.
Their main tool would be, youknow, the movement for women's

(01:09:30):
rights, the civil rightsmovement, representatives of
religious minorities fightingfor their right to freedom of
religion and equality, gayrights.
If you ask Jonathan Rauch, mygood friend, gay rights, if you

(01:09:50):
ask Jonathan Rauch, my goodfriend, who was part of the
movement fighting for gay rights, he will say you know, without
free speech we would not havehad a chance.
So, yes, it is true that thereis, you know, unequal access to
platforms, but free speech hasbeen the main weapon of
oppressed people throughouthistory, even though it might

(01:10:14):
not look that way today.
But if you look at history,that's a fact and that's why I
think even though it can befrustrating when you listen to
powerful people and what theyare allowed to say to try to
pass new laws so you can shutthem down, but I think the

(01:10:35):
unintended consequences of thatwould be that the people in
power will use those lawsagainst the people who don't
have a voice today or who are onthe margins of society.

Shawn (01:10:54):
I'm going to say it again this is Trump's America.
We are at a pivotal moment inAmerican history.
The fate of democracy is in ourhands right now.
We cannot afford to rely on thepress, on Congress, on the
Republicans or the Democrats, onthe judicial system, on our
neighbors.
People rarely get to choose themoment that they have to stand

(01:11:16):
up for their values, for theirfreedoms.
Jews in Nazi Germany would havepreferred if they could have
just not lived through thatperiod of time.
I'm sure the averagePalestinian in Gaza today would
probably choose to that periodof time.
I'm sure the averagePalestinian in Gaza today would
probably choose to live inanother time, another place.
Uyghurs in China, the same ManyUkrainians would probably
prefer to have lived through anera of peace and stability

(01:11:37):
rather than one ofindiscriminate murder, bombing,
rape and kidnapping.
We in America have becomecomplacent in our convenience
and relative stability.
But that time has passed.
I wish I could spend the restof my life knowing that my
retirement will be flush, thatmy passport will allow me to go
anywhere at any time, that I canexpress my opinion freely and

(01:11:59):
that the economy will only getbetter.
But that time has passed.
Grieve it, but you cannot avoidit and we need you to pull it
together.
Stand up, bear witness andresist what is happening, even
though it will hurt People, willdie.
People have already diedbecause of this systematic
attempt to disappear Americandemocracy.

(01:12:19):
But hiding, cowering, relentingwill only hasten the demise,
the apocalypse.
So find your backbone, becausethe moment has arrived and we
need you All right.
Check back next week foranother episode of Deep Dive
Chat, soon, folks.
Thank you, thank you, you.